Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday warned Western countries against allowing Ukraine to use long-range NATO missiles in strikes on Russian territory.
Putin pointed to comments from NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who recently suggested NATO members should lift restrictions on Ukraine’s use of their weapons.
“This constant escalation can lead to serious consequences. If these serious consequences occur in Europe, how will the US behave, bearing in mind our parity in the field of strategic weapons? Hard to say. Do they want global conflict?” Putin said during a visit to Uzbekistan, according to RT.
The Russian leader said that long-range strikes would require NATO support and that it would take “highly qualified specialists” from the West to do the targeting. A recent German military leak revealed that British soldiers are “on the ground” in Ukraine helping fire Storm Shadow missiles, which have a range of about 155 miles.
“So, these representatives of NATO countries, especially in Europe, especially in small countries, must be aware of what they are playing with,” Putin said.
This week, Sweden said Ukraine could use Swedish weapons to hit Russian territory, although Stockholm has not provided long-range missiles like the US and the UK have.
London had previously given Ukraine the green light to use British weapons on Russian territory, which prompted a strong warning from Moscow. Russia said it would hit UK military sites in Ukraine and “beyond” if British weapons hit its territory, and there have been no reports of British missiles targeting the Russian mainland. Both US and British-provided weapons have been used in attacks on Crimea over the past year.
The calls to allow Ukraine to strike Russian territory with NATO weapons have increased since Russia launched its offensive in Kharkiv, which Putin said was a response to Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s Belgorod Oblast. He warned of another escalation if long-range NATO weapons hit Russia.
“What caused this? They did, with their own hands,” Putin said, referring to the Kharkiv offensive. “Well, then, they will reap what they have sown. The same thing can happen if long-range precision weapons are used.”
Empty threat – using nukes solves nothing for Putin, much less for Russia.
Does deal with a) NATO, and b) the modern fantasy of safely f**king with the Russian Federation.
Not sure I get what your point…
The RF using nuclear weapons would destroy NATO bases, capitals, and retaliation infrastructure. All-in to permanent end the threat the West (read : NATO) poses to the Russian Federation.
No more decades of NATO creeping eastward and pretending like it doesn’t deeply desire the Balkanisation (at best) or annihilation (if wishes be fishes) of the Soviet Unio…i mean RF.
Sure but the retaliatory strikes would do the same for the Russians – you know that we have the ability to strike back – don’t you?
We have submarines and plenty of hard to get underground launchers – that is why we have not had an attempt at a first strike since about the Korean war.
You’re talking to a “true believer” there! He believes that RUSSIA IS UNSTOPPABLE. Meanwhile, Russia can’t even take Ukraine’s second city. (Or is it now not what they wanted to do?)
I don’t this Russia is unstoppable.
I do think they see a “do or die, use or lose” TSN Turning Point in their immediate future. NATO is pushing, pushing, pushing the Russian western border (supporting & arming Ukraine; Finland; overtures to Georgia et. al.) and the US support for the ASI genocide in Gaza (and the ASI reich’s full-throttle embrace therewithin) makes it clear to the Russians that in world politics, we have reached a terminal phase of long-term planning in world leadership, particularly the West.
The “old rules” don’t apply so much any more. And in terms of Golden Opportunities, “if not now, when ?”
This said – I am repeating the analyses I have read to remind everyone …including Certain NATO True Believers Who May Or May Not Use The Court Jester Of The Democratic Party As Their Profile Pic… that the Russians are far more dangerous when cornered, than some of you think.
And with Russia’s hyper-aggressive approach to their neighbors, all of those countries begging to join NATO.
And I’ll repeat myself: Russia can continue to f**k around and they’ll continue to find out.
Read the plot. NATO exists to counter the threats that arise because of … the continued existence of NATO. Not my line, but true.
You're too smart & capable to pretend as if NATO is anything but a profitable intranational mutual-fund for the MIC, Ratio. It's an evident playbook :
1. Turn an alliance against the Warsaw Pact into a creeping threat to Russian Federation national security.
2. The Russians fortify against an encroaching, modestly hostile NATO.
3. Non-NATO countries literally caught in the middle scramble to "protect themselves" by supplicating to NATO.
4. NATO accepts new members that further the threat the RF feels – and makes insane bank off upgrading new members' militaries to NATO spec AND siphoning ideally a 2% GDP tithe (contributions may vary) from them to protect against what NATO has caused since the USSR fell.
5. GOTO 1.
For fear of presuming your opinion…
Ratio. Direct questions :
1. In a direct nuclear war with the Russian Federation, do you think a) the USA and/or b) Europe, can and will come out a winner?
2. Do you think the Russians can be defeated – in any sense or definition of the word "defeated" (not just 'financially', 'militarily', or 'emotionally' as some seem to believe)
My answers are 1a – No, 1b – Definitely not, and 2 No.
Let's see where we may find common ground?
1) No.
2) Yes.
Okay. Your answer to 1 is evidence you ARE sensible (sorry, too much Donald & Timothy and Sully).
Your answer to 2, tho, suggests you've missed the last, oh, THOUSAND YEARS of north Asian history and the experiences of the Rus, pre-Rus, and modern Russian people. I daresay no geography on Earth has been dealt a worse hand for proximity to world- and major-empire forces. Mongols. Germans, twice at least. Napoleon. Imperial Japan. Lotsa lotsa China. Turks. Persians. Vikings. Other Russians…
By this I mean – Russia is built on adversity and facing impending conquest. Destroy their military, their economy. Flatten their cities. You still haven't defeated them. They have a will like few others of our species.
Militarily, financially, logistically, things are different. It’s also possible now to defeat a country without invading.
A Country, yes. A State, maybe. A Nation, particularly the Russian one, no.
In fairness, I'd say the very similar about the USA. The country is floundering. The state (particularly the Deep State) is already dug in and ready to survive apocalypse. The nation, tho deeeeeply divided, I think still has enough common ground to survive almost anything.
From what I have read – again, analyses in essays on this very site – I am very much given to the opinion that the Russian Federation can hit NATO capitals (for the sake of conversation, Washington DC, London, and NATO corporate HQ in Brussels) and land/air-side nuclear launch facilities really, really quickly. About 6 minutes if memory serves.
With that strike done, Moscow would inform all other NATO members they are next IF each or any decide to invoke Article V…while notifying England and America that their population centers are next if they don’t cede a surrender.
Again – this is what I have gleaned by expert analysts whose treatise on the topic are either hosted by antiwar.com, and/or were original publications on here.
If the Russians strike the submarines of the UK and the French would launch, if the Russians were to threaten them as you describe they might as-well just surrender – you have to think why they would gamble that the west would suddenly decide to just surrender because of a threat, a threat that have existed since the 1950’s.
This analysis is only compatible with the west being willing to yield because some capitals were already hit, one of the issues I have with this being that your proposition is that the reduced flight time (from 11 to 20 minutes to 6 should cause such a difference).
Because hypersonic weapons have only a very limited difference to ICBM’s (they also fly at hypersonic speeds and have since 1950’s). So there will not be time in the military framework to alter the decision based on a this very short time span – remember that it is in the 6 which used to be some 11 minutes flight time the decision to strike back is taken.
At the first nuke explosion the return strikes are started – there is not a political debate and no time frame (pause) for the Russians to send the message you propose or the western leaders to make a decision.
To one specific point – I’m given to understand that, while ICBM’s and hypersonics (I am sad they moved from Seattle…) achieve comparable velocities, it is the trajectories that differ significantly. ICBM’s trace a high suborbital arc (thus longer flight path and longer response time available to targets) whereas hypersonics follow a more direct, cruise-missile, lower altitude path that reduces the {t=d/v} metric.
Bear in mind too, a large (even nuclear) explosion would not “automatically” trigger a Western / US / NATO launch. I do not think the West has a dead-hand the Russians are rumoured to employ.
And as we saw with the Chelyabinsk Event in 2013, there are other things that can cause a frightening airburst explosion that isn’t an attack. Human decisions would still have to happen (look how long My Pet Goat George W sat in that classroom after informed of the WTC attack) and that will take more time than [if NUKE_ASPLODE=TRUE then LAUNCH-ALL.exe. End IF] on a NORAD 386-33MHz launch compy.
The western response to one nuclear strike is not likely to be an immediate all out retaliatory strike – the western response to hundreds of strikes is however automatic as in not dependent on a political process – this is the only way to discourage attempts at first strikes – i.e. automated responses to hundreds of missiles flying.
I don't think the response (from the USA) is as automatic as you claim. The order still needs to come from the President or his political next-of-kin. And at present, THANKFULLY, no one has yet been stupid enough to put A.I. in charge.
I think you are correct but then the US list of command succession is very long so they will not be able to make a successful decapitation strike – there will be someone left to make the decision. In the UK the submarines does however have a “…system is simpler – it’s “letters of last resort” in nuclear missile submarine safes.” so nuclear retaliation in case of a decapitation strike is ‘automatic’.
Yes, a lot of names on the succession list. Some so far down and so removed from international affairs to guarantee either paralysis OR a "whatever you want" to the Joint Chiefs (who are hammers and every problem is a nail).
How much faith have YOU that the Secretary of Education could or would make a good call when Colorado, plains states, cities with bomber bases, and Washington DC are Ground Zeroes (real ones this time) and Moscow's on the wireless asking if the USA wants its east or west coast cities next ?
Paralysis is not guaranteed just because the list is long – I do not know what makes you think that any specific senator (or anyone else for that matter) would delay a retaliatory strike – there simply is no logic to such a delay – the military guys will tell anyone in charge that they have to retaliate while they have the strength or most likely face further strikes until there is no such capability – that is how they would act themselves.
SO I have near complete confidence that any attempt at decapitation strikes would be met with a retaliatory strike (bort from the US and from Russia) that is just how the nuclear logic works. There simply is no credible reason to believe that any Russians offer not to make further strikes would be anything other than a ruse.
Further – as the Russian first-strike is a decapitation attempt, it presupposes a wipeout of the US C&C hierarchy and bomber & silo fields, leaving a chaotic mess in which it falls to the Secretary of Housing And Human Development (the highest surviving official in the CoC) to make a call – when by that point the message from Moscow has arrived just after the atomics did.
Do not expect that the Russian Federation will give Western leaders time to scurry into a Vault-Tec shelter.
This was as pointed out always the first strike objective the technology shift by introducing hypersonic rockets has only changed the warning time – since the response to a first strike was and still isn’t dependent on a political process that change means nothing.
What changes is the likelihood that western leaders manage to get to safety as you point out – but they are not necessary for the retaliatory strike – that will be happening even as the Russian missiles are still flying.
This is why a first strike has not happened over the many years since it was a possibility MAD.
I don't think there's ever been so much of a cause for first-strike (Cuban Missile Crisis, and Able Archer 83, being tgr standouts) as we have now.
And (un)fortunately, Russian tech and strategies have evolved significantly in the 40+ intervening years.
Why is there now a better case for a first strike – Russia/the Kremlin is under no threat of either invasion or nuclear strike – and the technology has only progressed to shorten an already too short time for any real political debate.
It might end the threat.
It would also end the Russian Federation.
If the Russian Federation is going to end then the Russian Federation is going to take the United States with it. I don’t think any of us want that. But Vladimir Putin has never threatened to actually use nuclear weapons. So this is kind of a silly argument.
There is a lot of ‘projection’ from certain sides – the USA on a few political fronts, most notably laughably suggesting the DPRC is expanding its influence and intimidating neighbours as the USA rings China with its own bases – and more often than not, what the US claims about its adversaries’ motivations seems to speak more to its own intentions.
The United States is a master at projection. They practice it all the time. Practice makes perfect.
Indeed.
I am reminded that someone in this Russia v. NATO spat, if not invented the “scorched earth policy”, f’damned sure worked it to magnificent effect before.
A) There will be no “dealing” with NATO. Russia cannot even advance any further toward Ukraine’s second largest city. Now their going to concur Poland?
B) The West HAS been f**king with the Russian Federation. What’s happened?
Whether or not Poland concurs with NATO decisions is besides the point.
In a shooting war with NATO directly, the RF wouldn’t necessarily (or IMO definitely should not) escalate slowly or classically (taking land by conventional invasion). Once the gloves start to come off with NATO, the RF would be wise to skip to the bottom line – nuclear decapitation strikes on NATO capitals, C&C centers, retalitory nuclear sites. Then impose an end to hostilities with whatever command is left or else other Western cities are next. I believe this strategy was described in an essay on this very site some months back.
B). What happened is, the RF has been impossibly patient and restrained.
A) Tough-guy bulls**t won’t work with NATO. Putin wouldn’t have the opportunity to launch the strikes. NATO would see the movement of Russian nukes and eliminate the threat.
B) You’re still hanging onto the hope that Russia really is being “impossibly patient” in Ukraine. Hahaha. Grow up, son! Russia can’t get the job done.
If Russia launched their sarmat hypersonic missiles with avantgard hypersonic glide vehicles against the United States then there’s nothing we could do except bend over and kiss our asses goodbye. We have nothing that will stop any of those weapons. The smart thing for us to do would be to stop provoking Russia and China. But there aren’t very many smart people in Washington.
Agreed. Given what a non-success that line of ABM interceptors tested over the Pacific many times, turned out to be. If I recall they hit their target 1 outta 3 times on average, when no counter-measures or fakes were employed by the test target AND the interceptors had the precise vector and speed of the target ?
Not even to mention Russian undersea nuclear devices. Which, I’ll admit, are a lot lower on the plausibe-threat scale than their hypersonics and close-proximity nuclear sub platforms.
Oh, no! Not their super dooper, never seen before, ultra hi-def missile-rockets!!!!!!
You didn’t call me a tankie. You’re slipping.
People are starting to ease off the racial slurs. I'd love to take credit for shaming them into it but I'm neither that charming nor convincing.
I was never sure what a tankie is. Can you help me here?
The term was first used to describe western communists who cheered the Soviet invasions (with tanks) of Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
Thanks. I wonder what Rational Thinker means by it. Maybe he'll reveal his meaning.
Racial slur.
That’s the older definition of tankie.
Correct. The "newer" one is entirely racial slur. And it's easy to tell when someone uses it in that fashion, because they'll claim it isn't.
No, Unc. YOU'RE still a tankie.
I've come out of nearly 3 years of people calling me the N-word… A racial slur against genetics I don't hold, fills me with eye-rolls and indifference.
No. You seem like a pure Putin-puffer.
Why do you say that? And please tell me, Rational Thinker, what is a tankie? Serious questions.
You regurgitate Russian Propaganda like Putin is your daddy. You have the internet; look up tankie yourself. (I won’t do your homework for you.)
No, I don’t regurgitate Russian propaganda. If you had any clue about what you’re talking about then you would know that. But you don’t. You’re just here to troll.
No. The garbage you spew is directly from Russian MOD.
Enjoy your evening, troll.
A) I will grant you double the estimate delivery / reaction time I believe based on expert analysis. 12 minutes then. For sake of argument, TWELVE minutes between launch and the vaporisation of Washington DC (sayeth the average voter, “Now get to the down-side of the scenario…”)
You think Joltin’ Joe Biden can be roused from his general haze to make an informed decision in that time ? Now, I dunno if the Joint Chiefs (some at least) still run under the Trump Doctrine (“if Trump orders us to launch, we don’t”) but last I understood America’s chain of command, only the President may authorise a nuclear launch OR, if declared incompetent or incapable (that’ll take time you don’t have) then the VP calls the ball.
Again, 12 minutes as TWICE the estimate. Realistically, 6 minutes from launch (absent detection and confirmation delay) to a huuuge H laying waste.
B) Flip the script, jefe ! You know as well as any of us that if the USA was trudging through an invasion of a country (let’s say in 2031 in the DPRK) and there was BLAZINGLY OBVIOUS EVIDENCE that the Russians and Chinese were figuratively shoveling weapons and long-range missiles and equipment into Kim Jong Deux’s hands (everyone loves a sequel) for the North Koreans to target US airbases, army bases, and ships, that the USA could be “impossibly patient” and not strike the RF or DPRC 2.5 minutes later, let alone not even after 2 YEARS and 5 WEEKS (at present count in Ukraine) ???
And to be clear, by “impossibly patient” I mean the RF towards the blatant and flagrant horsesh*ttery that NATO is playing at, keeping those dodgey neo-Nazis in Ukraine dying for a cause with Western weapons.
Nah. Putin would be dead before they even moved their nukes.
And, Russian weapons have killed US service members and the US didn't retaliate; so, I think your premise is incorrect
All the wars, color revolutions and interventions over the last decades by the USA solved nothing either.
That is not the view of the majority of the populations in e.g. Ukraine – they are so happy at being free from Russia that they opt to carry on fighting even with 7 months of no support from US – unlike the Afghans – showing just how different the motivation is – the Afghans fought to be independent so does the Ukrainians.
The aid never stopped. Including paying for the salaries and pensions of the Kiev regime. Accounting scams were used for military equipment for example:
CNN
—
The Biden administration announced another package of military aid to Ukraine worth up to $300 million on Tuesday after months of warning there was no money left, with officials saying the new funding became available as a results of savings made in weapons contracts.
“National security adviser Jake Sullivan announced the package in a briefing at the White House on Tuesday afternoon.”.
This was on April 12, 2024 when you claim there was no aid. This happened a number of times. In addition, the books were cooked on the costs with the replacement costs being 4 X as much.
This is just money laundering writ large. The MIC gets a billions, a bunch goes back to the lobbyists, the politicians get a cut and, of course, Zelensky and his cronies pocket immense amounts money.
The US aid certainly diminished by orders of magnitude.
Nope. Not by ” orders of magnitude ” at all.
And some of the reasons for reductions were the results that the US does not have the capacity to send more. The factories, and especially the skilled workers, are no longer available. Factories shut down. The fore persons that would train personnel for skilled jobs are retired or dead. A lot of the military equipment is junk. Abrams tanks are too heavy. Armoured in the wrong places for drone attacks. Gasoline engines and subject to burn out. Maintainace is
nightmarish with 8 hours required for every hour used. F-35 fighters are hanger queens. Many are scrapped for parts that cannot be produced in quantities to maintain the existing fleet. Himars rockets are subject to GPS jamming. 777 howitzer tubes are not durable under field conditions that require rapid counter battery fire. Artillery munitions cost 15- 22 X per shell and are, at best, marginally better that Russian equivalents.
As far as your point that Russia’s advances are slow? True. But the Russians are atritting the Ukrainian military. Baiting them into losing troops. The Russians seek to degrade the available manpower of Ukraine. Once that is accomplished, NATO will have to use it’s own troops. And that will create a POLITICAL problem in NATO countries. And The EU industrial base is even worse off than America’s. Especially after sanctions backfired.
Best to negotiate now and save Ukrainian lives and leave Ukraine with more territory.
So yes there was a pause on deliveries -the money were spend and very little was delivered over the 6 to 7 months – you just claim that it was because there was nothing to deliver.
The Russians are having massive demographic problems (the Ukrainians are having even worse mind you) the war was in part supposed to delay the problems such demographic challenges bring. Attritional warfare is in other words the worst way for them to win – they are attritting the value of the Ukraine they were hoping to get control over.
NATO is unlikely to use its own troops in direct fighting roles and there are plenty of Ukrainians left for at least 3 to 4 years more of fighting (France lost far more people from a similar base fighting WWI – and they won) to put it in simple terms no one is going to win based on running out of people.
They may lose based on not being willing to lose that many young people, but not because there were none to fight – they may also lose based on the people not being willing to die for a cause they no longer believe in like the west did in Afghanistan.
In short it is up to the Ukrainian government and/or fighters when they want to negotiate – for the west the war has not started and the sanctions will not end until either the Russians again respect the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine or at least a couple of decades have passed and the threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan has been resolved.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-us-weapons/
I think we both read Andrew Cockburn's excellent essay yesterday…!
And I am reminded of the story – probably apocryphal – of how the Americans (NASA) spent years and tons of money to develop a pen that could write in the microgravity of space…and the Russians simply used pencils.
Complexity is not the hallmark of good design. Simplicity is.
I think those were grease pencils. I know there has to be a joke in there somewhere.
Yes. I read the article after I posted the above. The information has been available for awhile. Except with the msm state mouthpieces which rarely point out inconvenient facts contrary to the state's narrative. People might figure out how badly they are being ripped off by DC and their MIC collaborators.
You seem to have missed the part where speaker Johnson prevented a vote on further assistance for 6+ months.
You seem to have a problem understanding what you write. Let me jog your failing memory: ” …even with 7 months of no support from US”.
Perhaps medical intervention is indicated?
You are absolutely right there was small amounts of non military support.
Missing the point that the Afghans gave up with much more support while the Ukrainians kept on fighting with much less support.
Huh????
"…The Biden administration announced another package of military aid to Ukraine worth up to $300 million on Tuesday. "
To wit: " …military aid…". This was one of a number of military aid packages over the period you are referring to.
So you do ignore that there was a pause from the money ran out in late 2023 to May 2024 – good to know that.
Putin has never threatened to use nuclear weapons.
The argument does not base itself on Putin actually overtly making threats only on whether striking would actually solve anything for them.
Since Putin has never made the threat and since it is extremely unlikely that Russia would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine then it seems silly and pointless to even make the argument.
We could agree on that – but then the author of the article seems to disagree. If Putin meant strikes with conventional weapon strikes then the threat is also empty – if he meant economic war, then again the threat is empty.
Not sure I can find any way the threat was not an empty threat – you perhaps have a better idea as to what Putin was threatening?
I don’t think that Putin was issuing any threats. I would call them warnings for the west not to take certain provocative actions or else they will come with consequences. But Putin is purpously ambiguous about what those consequences are. I don’t see Russia launching any attacks into civilian areas, because Russia has so far been unwilling to target civilians, even when the NATO proxy does. I don’t see Russia wanting to fight a wider war, although NATO seems determined to provoke Russia into doing just that. But there are things Russia could do which involve arming proxy forces to strike at western military targets in the area. Trying to predict what the Russian general staff is going to do is pointless. But Russia is not going to be defeated in Ukraine. Not even if all of NATO, including the United States, becomes directly involved. I could see that resulting in a nuclear war in which we would all lose.
I completely disagree with your view on the Russian reluctance to cause civilian casualties – but I concur that this:
Is a very likely response.
I also would point out that the NATO has shown very much reluctance to cause a direct confrontation – otherwise the 2+ years of delay before allowing the Ukrainian use of western weapons in Russia is very hard to explain.
I actually agree in as much as that I do not see the Ukrainians defeating the Russians outright and retaking the occupied territories. I do however see the possibility of the Russians deciding that going back to early 1990’ties levels of poverty and much worse casualties levels than Afghanistan simply is not worth their while – but for that to have the effect of them withdrawing I would not be surprised for a decade to have to pass.
I do not see NATO forces being involved in any offensive actions against Russian forces in Ukraine at all.
I’m listening to the Alexander Mercouris podcast from yesterday and he says that Putin has issued more warnings about using western supplied missiles, which he points out require western targeting data and operation of the system, to strike inside Russia, including a direct warning to the United States. According to Alexander the west is backing down. Something we should all be thankful for. I believe that if the west were to actually use these weapons and do significant damage inside Russia then Russia would strike NATO military targets inside NATO territory. Then we would see how real NATO Article 5 is. I predict that if that were to happen then we would see that Article 5 is a sham.
As is by now clearly obvious – he was wrong – we only need to see that the prediction that if Ukraine uses western weapons in Russia, Russia will strike western nations is wrong – I predict that it is, as in no Russian attacks on NATO nations that they will take responsibility for.
Well that isn’t going to happen – that is not what is being debated – it is the Ukrainians that will be doing the usage of western delivered weapons from Ukrainian territory.
So you think Putin is bluffing. And so do the western leaders. Problem is that calling his bluff can be very very very costly to everybody .
Our ” leaders ” are truly playing with fire.
The problem for the western leaders is that the cost of not calling Putin’s bluff is much higher than what you think – in short it will cause the end of the rules based world order – if you need reasoning for this just indicate so.
Hence the western leaders are faced with the choice between a potentially civilization ending choice but with very low likelihood and an extremely costly choice with a near certainty. What I am saying is that it is pretty easy to predict what they will choose and that I am fairly certain that the Russians are not going to be willing to commit suicide just because they are not allowed to use the threat of nuclear war to annex territories from other nations.
"very low likelihood" is not as very or as low as you (or leaders) might think.
A lack of much precedent for casual nuclear weapon use (only twice, almost 80 years ago) is really what holds anyone back.
If the US had used nuclear weapons in the Korean War, or the Vietnam War (both had been SERIOUSLY proposed by respected military commanders at the time) then assuredly we'd have seen more since, and certainly now as NATO's meddling holds up the RF mission in Ukraine.
Well if you think the Russians are more nihilistic than the Soviets then sure otherwise no. I and the western leaders could be wrong but so far we’ve been right every time, you could argue that some time we have to be wrong i guess.
No MAD is what has held us back basically since the 1960’tiees.
Yes McArthur nearly could have had his way and even then without the MAD a certainty they didn’t use nukes – in Vietnam it was never a political chance – which just goes to prove how unlikely it is again now.
MAD is outdated. Both sides believe they have technological superiority. Unfortunately, at least one does.
Bear in mind the nukes in Korea or Vietnam were envisioned as tactical – not against cities, but to collapse / irradiate known enemy supply routes in mountain passes and strategic choke-points. It would not have triggered Soviet nuclear war but it would have created an alternate-historical precedent for anyone thusly armed now.
I have not seen any claim from the US side even trying to propose that they could prevent a retaliatory strike – if you have seen that please link the article.
Not to mention for the Vietnam war, lost the US any and all international backing – the reason they shied away not least of which were to keep the nuclear taboo.
I like your honesty. You are “fairly certain” that we will not all die in a nuclear holocaust.
For something that important , “fairly certain” does not cut it. I have kids who i want to see grow up in a normal world. Biden better be 100% certain that Putin won’t nuke Ukraine.
The rules based order can survive Russia annexing a few oblasts. It seems to have survived Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan and most of the West Bank.
fairly certain that we will not die in this scenario does cut it when held up against the alternative i.e. the fairly certain that we will die in a nuclear holocaust if we give in to nuclear blackmail and allow nukes to be used for aggressive wars of territorial conquest.
I too have kids and I do not want them to have to stand up to the invaders where their parents failed – this is a 1938/9 scenario – we have an option to refuse the Russian war of territorial conquest – or live with the consequence of ending the world order we based on the laws that came out of WWII.
And no the world order cannot survive the Russians taking a few oblasts, not unless you can answer the question of why you think that Xi will not take Taiwan as their ‘right’ for retaking a few oblasts.
The World order survived Israel’s annexation of the Golan heights and parts of the West Bank – because that was done as a result of wars started by the other side against Israel – so not actually a breach of the laws that we condemned Germans to death for breaking.
Add to this that the Arabs were quite clearly applying sanctions to the Israelis over these annexations as were others and the economic case for replicating the Israeli annexation for any other would be aggressor was negative. The World order is not based on that no one can do it, only that the consequences be so bad as to make it the least appealing option.
In Israel’s case this was only not the case because of the aggressive nature of their neighbors and the willingness of the US to compensate them for the economic damage. Had these annexations been the result of aggressive wars started by the Israelis then European sanctions would also have been implemented – as it is that was only avoided by US action i.e. at US diplomatic costs.
"Our " leaders " are truly playing with fire" So is Putin.
Russia can attack any one of the 950 US military bases worldwide.
America is over exposed!
Yes indeed you could argue that they already have through proxies – Russia is however exceedingly unlikely to take credit for or carry through a direct attack themselves.
Of course they can. But why would Russia want to start a war with the USA?
“…representatives of NATO countries, especially in Europe, especially in small countries, must be aware of what they are playing with” And the big countries. Now, I’m convinced they are Satanic Demons. They are no longer my concern. My concern is all the people of such countries. They are so brainwashed, they became totally demented. Nuclear Omnicide people!!! Is that what you want?
Two points of contention. One, you would find that The Satanic Temple, and it’s Seven Tenets, would stand in opposition to war, especially nuclear war. And two – in terms of creatures, devils (being lawful evil) are more likely who you mean in the context of a “modern Satan”, as ‘demons’ (being chaotic evil) are opposed to devils (and the lawful evil Satan characature).
Also the existence of “satan”, devils, and demons, is not supported by sound and valid evidence.
Oh, brother. You forgot the third point.
😂😆
You reminded me of Red Douglas. He was also very knowledgeable. I miss our discussions. I wonder why he left us?
Oh, thanks. Wasn’t he the nice fellow what helped put out all them oil-well fires in Kuwait in ’91 ? Read about him in the Reader’s Digest.
I guess it might have been. I have no idea.
You’re thinking of Red Adair, who died in 2004.
He the ” ‘Lisbeth, I’m comin’ !!!” guy ?
I think you are talking about Red Adair famous oil well fire fighter.
I believe Red came back under a different handle. And then he left again. He got frustrated easily it seemed and he just couldn’t tolerate some people who comment here. Just an opinion of course. I liked his point of view most times.
Thanks, Wars! You are one of the main reasons why I read the comments.
Thanks man. And right back at ya.
From what I remember of "Red" he thought he knew more than anyone else. And he got frustrated when people disagreed with him.
PreWW1 all over again-
i was right! wow
But i cant just close my eyes, ears, mouth and make it all go away?
as a fellow human here iam no saint but im not a deranged psychopath, warmongering lunatic clamoring for some weird end of days insanity.
Step oe’r that line!
[And you wonder why intelligent species have quarantined off our solar system off to all normal traffic and contact?] Duh!
Ah, too long my children have you had such toys and too long to realize what they can do. Raised on your call of duty bs and its cannon fodder for all of us…
The Zelboy should sleep underground if not already since he is no longer the Ukrainian president…!
It’s all insanity. Where this needs to end is a negotiation tables. Diplomacy, look it up sometime. This tit for tat will either end by negotiating peaceful terms, or with sticks and stones. When that’s all civilization has left. Finger pointing? That’s getting us nowhere fast.
The West ignored Putin’s warnings for years regarding NATO’s expansion and general belligerence and look what happened. And if they ignore these latest warnings lookout for what might happen!